Quote:

That system would be crushed by demand.

Great thread here. I remember when this proposal first came out and thought it was brilliant and am so sad that no NY or NJ pol would spend the political capital to make it happen. Not surprised at all that the Port Authority had no interest whatsoever, and they will be the main impediment to it ever happening. There is a great book about the history of the PA that gives some great insight into how that institution was created and became the bloated behemoth that it is today - Empire on the Hudson

Another proposal I think deserves some real thought is to run the HBLRT through the Lincoln Tunnel to the Bus Terminal or down 42nd St

This seemed an appropriate place to add this pretty awesome video of the 7 Train boring machine cracking through some dirt.

7 Train Tunnel Extension

Iwitness:
I think you have a great question. The intent of any tunnel would be to run a 4 and/or 6 train to Newark. If it where the 6 train we chose to run to Newark, it would be much easier than the four to integrate into they system. The 6 train runs on its own track (on in each direction) all the way to the Bronx. The four train would have to be rerouted from servicing Brooklyn, and set up a timing that would not conflict with the 5 train. In other words, if we joined the PATH into the system, it would be the six train (even though I would prefer the express 4 train).

I understand your opinion that a PATH link would be ?a lot of work for little reward?. I honestly disagree. First, I think more people from New York would live in JC if the PATH was part of the subway. Second, I think the union would be more that symbolic. I would be a single fare from Newark to the Bronx. That may be symbolism, if it is; symbolism is huge in New York. Symbolism is how they spurred development In LIC and Williamsburg because they are just across from Times Square and Union Square respectively. A single ride would integrate (symbolically) JC into the metropolis where it rightfully belongs.

Lastly, there?s nothing more valuable than a one-seat ride. People are lazy. As ianmac47 said, people don?t move to the heights because there?s no PATH. People want to transfer as little as possible. PATH means one transfer automatically. People do not do two transfers. Linking the PATH to the 4/6 would make people more comfortable with moving along our ever-expanding light rail.

To answer your question, I?ve worked with New York DOT while I?ve completed my transportation planning degree.

Quote:

I simply can't bear to wade through all the lengthy posts, but I have a question. Would these 4/6 trains run all the way from the Bronx to Newark? And if so, given that there's only one PATH tunnel in each direction on that line, wouldn't that lessen the frequency trains could run?

NYers transfer subway trains. I don't see why it's such a big deal to transfer, and think the 'symbolic' union of a subway line with a PATH line is a lot of work for little reward.

Unless you work on the Upper East Side or Midtown East.

Hey ThirdGrove, where do you work?

PH: What you described is a difference of two inches difference in lenght between the new path and the IRT trains. If that's the issue, the slightly smaller IRT can run through the entire system if the PATH proved too big for the IRT tracks. It's a great issue that needs attention, but i believe it's easily comes to an simple remedy compared to bigger issue: construction, cooperation between MTA/PATH, etc.

Quote:

That's what I said in post 10. But "cost effective" is a relative term, relative to who's saving and who's losing money. What motivation does the MTA has to stop charging PATH customers in exchange for a presumed split of the single fare with the PA? One assumes their calculation doesn't show them recovering the loss by increased ridership, the extra 2 subway fares per day probably doesn't deter most people who would be commuting anyway.

From what information I gathered, the width of the new PATH cars is 9' 2 3/4", the IRT (Numbered Lines and Grand Central Shuttles) cars are 8' 9" and the BMT/IND (Lettered Lines) are approximately 10'.

This seems like it could be an issue. And why the need to actually connect the lines when an integrated fare would be a much simpler solution? Metrocards can remember transfers from buses to trains, so it could be programmed for free transfers between the PATH and the Subway system.

This seems much more cost effective to me.

ianmac47: First, I want to continue to affirm that I am in support of any transportation expansion in Jersey City whether it be PATH, light-rail, boat, tram, hang-glider. I just simply don?t believe that we have the political capital to demand another subway route when such a route may cost 20 billion dollars. I think we both would endorse both solutions, but in the race for feasibility. I think a rail tunnel connection two systems for a few hundred million dollars is more likely to happen than a entirely new branch to a system.

I endorse your recommendations. I think they are smart and well thought out. However, I do not think it?s a solution as easily accomplished as linking the subway .25 miles the PATH in the PATH/LEX connection. The connection is tangible, and would be an up-hill battle to bring to reality. A Hudson County subway is a dream I hope we achieve for both our sakes.
Our PATH is indeed old, but not antiquated. It?s been renovated since 9/11, and continues to move to a modern track switch system. I may be mistaken, but I think their goal is conductorless trains. In many respects, our systems newer than New York?s, Boston?s, and certainly Philadelphia?s system (they?re still on tokens!).

I do remember the 33rd Street Newark Train. It was crowded, but I don?t think it would inspire people to flood back to New York. The WTC train isn?t the only thing going for us. We have the Holland Tunnel, Ferries, and the 33rd Street PATH. People make a way to work. Example, Union City has a population density of 55,000 people per square mile, no subway, but the Lincoln Tunnel has a bus tunnel in the morning. The area is gentrifying.

I think we all need to think a little more highly about light-rail. The Hudson-Bergen light-rail cars fit 68 people sitting with additional standing room for 120 other people. That?s about 190 people per cart. As you said, up to 3 carts can fit at a station. That?s 570 people per trip. Remember, light-rail can run at closer headways than subways so there can be back-to-back light rails (especially along the southern part of the route. No one can match the efficiency of the PATH, but light-rail does work for Jersey City. Example, PATH can run at 5 min headways. That?s 2,000 people every 5 minuets. Light-rail can run at 2-3 minuet headways. That?s about 1200 people every 5 minuets(ish). Comparable examples, the most heavily utilized light-rail in the country is Boston?s Green Line (The T). Boston has the size, population, and population density of Hudson County; if it can work for similar people, it can work fine for us.

The light-rail can run 24 hours a day, the light-rail. That?s a policy decision we can force action to achieve. It?s certainly something more feasible to achieve than a 20 billion dollar subway. The light-rail also has problems policy wont fix. Most people aren?t willing to switch three times for transit, and people prefer a one-seat ride. In other words, you?ll switch from the PATH to subway, light-rail to path, but few will light-rail to PATH to subway. We can never fix that. The only solution we have is to develop downtown Jersey City (which might be in all our best interests).

It really does come down to the expense relative to the cost. We all want a 20 billion dollar subway. We do, Philadelphia does (under Pennsylvania Ave), Seattle, Baltimore, and New York does as well. All of us can justify it. Will it get done? We shall see if the political tide changes in heavy favor of transit. Still at the end of the day, and even if we do gain an entirely new subway that runs as part of the Second Ave Subway, we should still fight for a PATH/Lex Connection because it?s easier, its cheaper, and it makes sense.

Nice.

Any word on the proposed light rail service up the 6th st embankment, through the bergan arches, over the old Boonton line (I think) to Secaucus junction?

A few other things:

The Tappan Zee Bridge replacement will contain the ability to build a rail link, though the funding for the actual rail link has not been included; that link could ease a bit of rail traffic coming off of Port Jervis line, which is now shared with the Bergen-Main Line. However, even with service over the Hudson up north, that won't ease congestion coming from the south and west of New Jersey where there is still plenty of open land waiting for a turn around in the housing market for more development

Plus on top of that, there have been other proposals for new rail extensions + residential development in what is now rural New York state, which over 20 or 30 years could further increase rail traffic along the Hudson Line, making any easing of congestion from Port Jervis impossible.

----

As to development in south and central New Jersey, a lot is happening along existing rail stations which is going to continue to contribute to heavier commuter traffic on the trains. Rahway and Elizabeth have both begun ambitious redevelopment around the stations. New Brunswick still has several large scale residential projects approved and ready to go. While these areas are less likely to contribute mass transit riders than say development in downtown Jersey City, the developments are centered around rail stations. And a smaller scale, even places like Perth Amboy, South Amboy, Asbury Park and Long Branch are creating transit oriented developments-- all feeding more commuters into the existing northeast corridor Hudson tunnel.

----

There has been a long standing proposal to eventually link the PATH to the Newark Airport monorail. (WTF they didn't build that monorail the extra two miles to the existing Penn Station is ridiculous) The track is there, as part of the PATH train storage. But more importantly, if local officials negotiated an extra stop on the two mile trip between Penn and EWR, that could spur a dramatic redevelopment of the area south of Penn Station, which would also mean more PATH riders. The PATH to EWR is still a concept, not really a hard plan, and suggesting an extra Newark PATH station is akin to Healy's insistence that one day there will be another PATH stop in Jersesy City west of Journal Square. Still, Newark has historically had powerful state level politicians, and there is no denying the usefulness an extra PATH station in Newark would prove in redevelopment (see also downtown Jersey City, Hoboken).

As to Maglev and / or monorails, one proposal I recall reading about suggested building a high speed rail system linking lower Manhattan and the three airports directly to terminals. Passengers would be security screened before boarding the train system and deposited directly into terminals. In essence the idea would be to create one giant airport connected by a train system that was fast enough to reduce the time between terminals. It sounded like an interesting fantasy.

---

Other alternatives include building a rail extension over the GWB. It has the weight capacity for another traffic deck or a rail line. The problem with this is people in Fort Lee don't want a rail connection to the Bronx. Maybe if the Bronx gentrifies a bit more. Another alternative is extending the 7 train due west. JC Construction posited something along these lines:
http://jcconstruction.blogspot.com/20 ... d-path-map-pipedream.html

---

The problem with light rail, while significantly cheaper, is capacity. The cars each hold about 125 passengers. Trains usually run 2 at a time and I believe 3 at a time fit at the existing stations. The R142 (and on PATH, the PA5) holds between 175 and 190, On a 10 car train, that's almost 2,000 people vs. 375 on a 3 car light rail. Maybe in Bayonne or Staten Island light rail would be enough, but if there was a direct connection to Manhattan under the river, it would be sorely under capacity to rely on light rail. Also, let's not overlook Bayonne's MOBY redevelopment, which will also add quite a large number of residences.

The success of the PATH and of the MTA subway is because the systems run 24/7. The light rail turns off. I'm sure NJ Transit has their reasons for doing that, but the bottom line is if you want to go from the Bronx to Coney Island at 3am it costs $2.25, not a $100 cab ride, or Newark to Astoria, it costs $4, not $150. Why did the downtown real estate explode when everyone thought the heights was going to be the hot neighborhood? 24/7 PATH access vs. not, and then later the light rail, which is slow, turns off at night and also doesn't go to Manhattan.

And its true, politically, such subway expansion is difficult to sell. When I've spoken to elected officials, they always complain about the huge expense of the light rail, forgetting the increases gained in higher income tax collections, investment in derelict and under used properties, and overall economic growth and environmental improvements.

---

The one final reason for building a third subway tunnel between Hudson county and Manhattan is that the PATH is old. Its really old. And it runs all night long, every day, which makes maintenance hard. But anyone that has ridden late night trains or weekend trains knows that that service is already at capacity, so closing down one tube for repair work is ever more difficult. And lets not forget that for 2 years after 9/11, there was no WTC PATH. That was 15 high rise apartment buildings ago. Try that now and the Jersey City economy would collapse and the Hudson River would look like the English Channel during the assault of the Spanish Armada. So basically I'm also arguing that a third tunnel is critical not just for existing capacity and future capacity, but the scenario where the current PATH needs major repairs to the aging tunnel.

Gonna piggyback on ThirdGrove here in that I feel any momentum for this sort of project really rests with the modification/replacement of the Bayonne Bridge. I know the PA and NYSA reps are keen on simply knocking the thing down (why wouldn't they - it's a few billion cheaper!) or raising it, but if the bridge is indeed rebuilt, it will be built to accommodate rail. With the North Shore line coming back into style, we're most likely looking at a connection to the 8th st hblr.

Money's going to walk here, so the bridge will be addressed, but imho there is little hope for a tunnel under the kill van kull.

ianmac, don't get me wrong, I like the result of your proposal! The other thing is that this would for the most part benefit NJ folks. Lower Manhattan will NOT be torn up to benefit NJ, no matter how little the actual impact. my thoughts, at least.

There is more literature on the PATH/Lex Connection here:
North Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers Proposal
http://www.nj-arp.org/path_lex.html
Other thoughts
www.irum.org/news0801.pdf
www.rrwg.org/path-Lex.pps

Somewhere there's a PA response that I can not find right now.

I think maglev monorails should be looked at more closely instead of staying with traditional rail service. I saw a tv show about monorails and they brought up some very interesting points.

Shanghai has a monorail that has about 19 miles of track from the airport to business district and the travel time is 8 minutes traveling at 267 MPH. That is the future of rail service. The tracks elevated and can travel at higher speeds. The maglev uses hardly any moving parts if any which is less maintainance. Also the electricity used is location specific, so the entire line does not need to be powered. Only where the car is at the given time.

ianmac47, Thanks for that, you painted a very interesting and well thought out vision of how the region may be expanding and it's impact of the various public transit proposals/projects. I hadn?t put all of those silo?d pieces together in my head in that way. Reading how you tied that together succinctly was interesting.

Well I don?t think the Bayonne Bridge will fall, however studies show that our ports will become more obsolete if they cannot pass vessels under the bridge. They?ve considered dredging, but the best solution will probably be a bridge replacement. That said, I wouldn?t be surprised if a subway to Staten Island would not be suggested specifically because of the fear that they may need to dredge many, many years from now.
The 2030 Plan calls for a restoration of North Shore Service AND possible connection of North Shore Service as part of the light rail. The reason NYC and NYS DOT want to go the light rail route is because of the intense cost of a subway. It cost us little over 2 billion to build a 22 mile light rail, It costs a subway over 2 billion per mile in today money. For the cost in today money of 20 billion dollar subway, we can build a light rail along JFK that comes down along Grand Street as well as a line through the Heights, and probably a line most streets.
The cost to build a subway doubles every 10-15 years so by the time the Second Ave Subway comes online, a new tunnel to NJ might cost 50 billion with the grand ave subway. That said, I still stand behind such an expense because we agree that the investment is needed.
It would be hard to get the public to buy into such an expense especially when the alternative could be much more light rail. Though I agree that we should have a third line subway line, I simply don?t think it?s feasible if we couldn?t get WTC to connect to the subway. If we can?t get a mile in a common sense connection, I find it hard to believe we could get 20 miles.
I agree that we need more public transit capacity to accommodate growth, but I think we disagree how it will likely be accomplished. I don't think either of us would oppose any transit expansion, but I think Jersey City has and will continue to expand using lightrail.
Talking about politics, the WTC connection would have the potential support of 4 Senators and several congressman as the PATH WTC 4/6 line would pass all the way to the Bronx.

The Bayonne Bridge will either be replaced or fall into the water sometime in the next 20 years. (also, the bridge is too low for many modern ships).

The NYC2030 plan already calls for the restoration of service to the North Shore Line.

The currently under construction ARC tunnel will not relieve the trans-Hudson congestion in the long term; much of that capacity is spoken for with long term NJ Transit expansion, such as the aforementioned service to Scranton, as well as another line into Middlesex County and service restoration to West Trenton and service restoration to Easton, Pennsylvania.

On a twenty to thirty year time frame, Jersey City has some 15,000+ planned housing units, and Harrison has several thousand more. Should Newark ever experience an urban renaissance, that too will add commuters to both the NE Corridor and to the PATH. And of course the area around Journal Square, should redevelopment prove fruitful, has the potential add thousands of high density residences.

In addition, the northern expansion of the HBLR will deposit many commuters at PATH stations; commuters diverted away from Hoboken when ARC opens will likely be replaced by HBLR riders.

Compounding this is the finite amount of land currently connected to the city subway system. The region is still growing, and growing rapidly. Gentrified neighborhoods are pushing workforce labor further from the city core. There will need to be more housing available overall and more variety of housing in terms of cost.

The short point is: the capacity demand will be there for a third subway tunnel between Hudson County and Manhattan, which is not being addressed by connecting the PATH to the 6 train.

The current cost of the Second Avenue subway is estimated at around $17B for 8.5 miles. No doubt connecting Hanover Square to Staten, about 10 miles, would have a base price starting at $20B+ but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Modern cities around the world are building entire new subway systems all of the time. Certainly much of that money would need to come from the federal government-- but a project with 4 Senators backing it has a better shot of receiving funding than a single state with only 2 (Ironically, it would cover fewer house Districts, NJ13, NY13, and NY8).

Quote:

I agree 100%.

The light rail is extending towards the Bayonne bridge right now for a new stop i think. While it's future is uncertain one option is to raise the bridge higher for shipping (clearance of large ships into the port is the issue). The bridge was built to accommodate for two RR tracks in addition to the roadbed and still could handle as is. I've walked the Staten Island North Shore ROW, is not in the best shape but could be made to work. The re-activated the very southern tip of it for the container port, Howland Hook or something. A decent portion of it NE of the Bayonne bridge has kind of fallen into the Arthur Kill, and it looks like private businesses are using it also. I am not sure if it is still intact as one peice of property. While i would love to see this I agree that new tunnels under the hudson and a tunnel linking JSQ to the light rail ROW would be next to impossible to accomplish these days. Your right to mention how long it is taking them to complete the 2nd ave line, 40+ years now? Long ago died the days of dig up the road, move this and that and if buildings happen to fall down...it is in the name of progress. The ARP option was the best opportunity i have seen, its a real shame.

I am 1000% all for this.

ianmac47: I think I and everyone here like your idea, and think it's really well thought out in terms of multiple feasibility. My only problem comes down to money. Building a tunnel or tube under the river costs billions, so will a capped subway through Jersey City and a bridge to Staten Island where they don't know if they will keep or destroy the Bayonne bridge. I guess I'm more convinced that we can bridge that gap at world trade much more easily that build an entirely new line and get similar benefits if we work heavily to incorporate and expand the light rail.

I also know that they've built a great wall of infrastructure between the two connecting points at WTC to Fulton. I think they would be more easily removed than building a new tunnel or building the PATH under all the infrastructure to rise back to Subway grade connecting with the six around City Hall.

That said, I would love to see another line under grand. I think its a dream to make the PA and MTA cooperate. Let alone build a concurrent tunnel--again, look at the Second Ave Subway project to date.

Quote:

Like ThirdGrove said, it's a money loser, like most mass transit. I believe they got it when they got the WTC site. Most institutions that run mass transit are at peace with it's subsidized nature, but not the PA. They won't give an inch, look at how they renovated the east exit at Grove without an elevator because no one actually forced them to, even though it was the right thing to do.

Quote:

I've frequently heard that the Port Authority hates the PATH, but why is that exactly? And why does it still operate it? Political pressure to do so?

The second a project like this would be approved, there'd be a virtual goldrush of people buying up property in Greenville.

Quote:

It is probably simply too late for all of this. The MTA has been working on their mega station connecting Fulton Street to Chambers. The pilings for WTC 2 and 3 are being installed on the eastern side of the WTC hole all around the 1 train tube. All of that is between the PATH and the City Hall loop, and that still doesn't address the potential compatibility issues between two very old subway systems.

As I said previously, I think a better alternative is a third trans-Hudson subway tube connecting to the terminus of the second Avenue subway line, and a really ambitious project would continue that third line south through Bayonne and connect to the old North Shore Line in Staten Island

Map

The advantage is several fold. First, it would provide a one seat subway ride from Staten Island to Manhattan. Second, by traversing two states and multiple Congressional districts, obtaining federal funding should be easier. Third, it would link a significantly larger portion of Hudson County to the subway system -- a critical investment in providing more transit oriented housing. Fourth, the current PATH system, and even with longer platforms, will be inadequate.

Quote:

I am pretty sure that is a different system (when originally built) with different specs for the trains that use it.

They are eventually going to connect the 33rd st path station to Penn Station so it's a start.

What ever happened to the connection to the E train from WTC?

Hey you certainly have the right to ask. You certainly have the right to doubt my knowledge on the subject matter. Here's the wikipedia for the New PATH Trains that the PA ordered (oddly, they are featured as part of a wiki nyc subway car series).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R142A_%28New_York_City_Subway_car%29 .

Your concerns are valid. I certainly don't want a cab scrapping a tunnel. Just to let you know, it also details the difference between the 04 and 08-09 models of the new trains. None of which change length or width.

To be fair, if the 4/6 trains could not fit, the PATH could still fit in their stations. If they decided to dedicate the money needed for the tunnel. A car shift would probably be a much smaller part of the puzzle. Perhaps the 4/6 cars would go to the 2/3 or 7 train and more cars would be purchased for a compatible PATH/MTA system.

Quote:

The old PATH cars were slightly wider than the IRT cars but the demensions were remarkably similar. I think the proposal considered that the PATH was about to replace it's entire fleet (doing it now) and could easily used a hybrid. The PATH started to lengthen platforms to accomodate for 10 car trains on the newark to WTC line also. ..

Search here for more info: http://www.nj-arp.org/

Quote:

Just to be clear I'm saying the 4,5,6 tunnels, not the trains, might not be wide enough. If you know for a fact the tunnels are wide enough do you know what the measurements are?

Also are you sure the train car lengths won't be an issue? The 4,5,6 tunnels have some very tight turns and their train cars are built short enough for them to be able to navigate the tight turns without scraping the walls. Are you sure the PATH train cars are of short enough length too?

Just asking.

Well I know the 4,5,6 trains are infact "wide enough", but the path may not be long enough as grove can only fit 6 carts and the MTA uses 8.

The PA is not really unique. Real estate and transportation go hand in hand. The suburbs sprung up because we paved highways to connect to them. As far as governing a grab bag of items, the PA most matches a less invested form of the Hong Kong subway (one of the only solvent systems in the world).

And I'm sure they hate the PATH compared to their cash cows (tunnels, bridges, airports), and that is why it may be smart for them to lease at least the WTC line of the PATH to the MTA. They could pay someone else to run it (save money on overhead). Meanwhile, if they lease it, we can still hold them responsible for the systems financial state and viability.

I don't think the fair system is much of a barrier. They would have to adjust the PATH turnstiles accounting when they read MTA Metrocards, and I think the smart cards provide the MTA with a laboratory of sorts on how to upgrade their system.